Latex allergy  
back to contents
Correspondence:
Dr Sarah Deacock
Consultant Immunologist
Royal Surrey
County Hospital
Department of Immunology
Egerton Road
Guildford
GU2 7XX
Tel 01483 464062
Fax 01483 464072

Sarah Deacock
Ph.D., M.R.C.P., M.R.C.Path
Consultant Immunologist Royal Surrey County Hospital

Dr. Sarah Deacock trained at Cambridge and St Thomas’ Hospital. After gaining her MRCP, she moved to the Royal Postgraduate Medical School for her Ph.D. in immunology, before completing training in Clinical Immunology. She is now Consultant in Clinical Immunology at the Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford and Frimley Park Hospital and Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of Surrey. Her special interests are Allergy and Primary Immunodeficiency.
 

Abstract

Latex allergy has become increasingly common over the last decade, largely as a result of the introduction of “universal precautions” to prevent virus transmission. Type I immediate hypersensitivity reactions, due to specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) directed against natural proteins found in rubber, cause symptoms such as urticaria, rhino-conjunctivitis, asthma and, most seriously, anaphylaxis. Type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions, due to T cells sensitised to the chemicals added to rubber during manufacturing, cause allergic contact dermatitis. Individuals who have repeated exposure to latex, particularly mucosal exposure, are at increased risk of sensitisation. Thus health care workers and patients with meningo-myelocele (“spina bifida”) or congenital urological abnormalities are especially likely to become sensitised. SIgE to natural latex proteins may cross-react with proteins found in various foods. Diagnosis of latex allergy is by clinical history and detection of sIgE in vivo (skin prick testing [SPT]) or in vitro for Type I hypersensitivity, or detection of sensitised T cells by patch testing for Type IV hypersensitivity. Preventative measures consist of avoidance of sensitisation in high-risk groups and avoidance of exposure for patients who are already sensitised. Specific safety measures should be discussed with patients who have established Type I hypersensitivity.

Keywords

latex allergy, atopy, type I hypersensitivity, type IV hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, patch testing

What is Latex?

Latex is a milky sap, which is the cytoplasm of specialised plant cells called lactifers, that form a network within the plant and help to seal damaged areas. It consists of a complex emulsion of droplets of natural rubber (cis-1, 4-polyisoprene) and a hydrophilic mixture of proteins, resins, tannins, starches and oils. More than 2,000 different plant species produce latex, but almost all of the latex used for manufacturing rubber goods comes from the commercial rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis (Figure 1). Rubber products contain approximately 93-95% rubber and 3% protein. The make-up of the protein component varies, depending on the source of the raw latex and the different types of manufacturing processes used, and it is these different polypeptides and proteins that cause IgE-mediated allergic reactions. 90% of latex is strained, diluted with water, treated with acid to coagulate the rubber particles and then pressed into sheets on “calendering” machines. Most of this rubber is used to make tyres. The remaining 10% is ammoniated to prevent coagulation of the rubber particles and bacterial growth, centrifuged to concentrate the rubber, treated with preservatives and accelerators and “vulcanised” (heated with sulphur to make it resistant to temperature changes). Rubber produced in this way is used to make dipped products such as gloves, condoms and balloons. It is the accelerators and preservatives that are added to the latex to improve its physical properties that cause T cell sensitisation and delayed hypersensitivity reactions.

Prevalence

The prevalence of type I latex allergy in the general population is less than 1%1, but in individuals with a high degree of exposure, such as health care workers, patients with spina bifida or congenital urogenital abnormalities and rubber industry workers, the prevalence is much higher. Prevalence rates in health care workers vary from 3-17%2,3 and up to 65% of children with spina bifida are sensitised4. Additional risk factors for sensitisation are an atopic background1 and a history of hand dermatitis5, with disruption of the skin barrier predisposing to sensitisation. Many studies have found a higher prevalence of latex allergy in women than men, but this may be because women are more likely to be exposed to latex.

Type I Hypersensitivity

Allergens

Although more than 200 different polypeptides have been identified in natural rubber latex, only a few of these are important allergens. Characterisation by protein chemistry and/or molecular cloning has shown that, in adults6,7, prohevein (Hev b 6.01), hevein (Hev b 6.02), rubber elongation factor/REF (Hev b 1) and acidic protein (Hev b 5) are major allergens; while in children,8 REF (Hev b 1) and REF homologue (Hev b 3) are the major allergens. The antigen content of manufactured goods varies greatly, depending mainly on the manufacturing processes used, but also on the natural variations in protein content that occur in latex. Allergen content in different brands of latex gloves, for example, has been found to vary 3,000 fold. If gloves are powdered with cornstarch, as a donning lubricant, inhalation of latex proteins is possible, since the latex proteins are able bind to the cornstarch particles which are easily aerosolised and may remain airborne for hours. The particles are small (1-3µ in diameter) and may be inhaled. Measurement of latex allergen concentration in air samples from a large medical centre showed that in some sites where powdered gloves were frequently used there was over 600 times more latex protein in the air than at sites where powdered gloves were seldom/never used9 (Figure 2).

Symptoms

Urticaria, angioedema, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, asthma and anaphylaxis may occur as a result of type I, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to latex proteins. 80% of reported reactions are due to rubber gloves or urinary catheters, with contact urticaria being the most common symptom. Anaphylaxis has usually occurred per-operatively or during barium-enema examinations and the onset of symptoms is usually between 15 – 120 minutes post-procedure. A small number of patients have died due to latex-induced anaphylaxis10.

Latex – Food Cross-Reactivity

Approximately 50% of individuals who are latex-allergic are also allergic to various foods. In particular, they may be allergic to different fruits11, hence the “Latex-Fruit” Syndrome. The cross-reactivity is thought to occur because of specific IgE which recognises antigenic epitopes on proteins which are structurally similar in latex and other plants. For example, specific IgE against hevein and hevamine has been shown to cross-react with other plant proteins using techniques such as RAST-inhibition and immunoblotting inhibition assays. The most frequent cross-reactivity occurs with avocado, banana, chestnut and kiwi, but there are many other foods which may also cross-react, including celery, fig, grapefruit, mango, melon, papaya, passion fruit, pear, peaches, pineapple, potato, soybean, stone fruits (apricot, nectarine, peach, plum), and tomatoes. It is important to discuss possible food-related symptoms in individuals with latex allergy, but also remember that sIgE to various cross-reacting foods may be found without the person having clinical symptoms on exposure to that particular food (Figure 3).

Type IV Hypersensitivity

Type IV or delayed hypersensitivity causes allergic contact dermatitis, often referred to as “rubber glove eczema”. It occurs when T cells become sensitised to rubber additives (accelerators) that are added to the rubber during manufacturing to improve the physical qualities of the finished products. The main additives are thiurams, carbamates and mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT). Workers in the adhesives and clothing industries, as well as health care workers and rubber industry workers are particularly at risk. The acute phase of the reaction occurs 48-96 hours after exposure, with vesicular lesions on the back of the hands. Chronic exposure leads to skin thickening (acanthosis) and characteristic eczematous changes. It should be remembered that non-allergic irritant skin rashes due to rubber gloves are more common than eczematous or urticarial rashes.

Diagnosis

Type I latex allergy is diagnosed on the basis of clinical history and detection of sIgE either in vivo or in vitro.12

A clinical questionnaire helps to identify “at risk” groups, such as health care workers or patients with spina bifida, an atopic background, presence of hand dermatitis, latex exposure either at work or per-operatively, food allergies and previous Type I and Type IV allergic reactions to latex.

Skin prick testing (SPT) for sIgE to latex is the most reliable diagnostic method, with sensitivity and specificity rates of almost 100% being reported in some series13. One standardised SPT allergen preparation (Stallergenes, S.A., Fresnes, France) and several non-standardised preparations are available. It is also possible to SPT through latex gloves, or to soak pre-weighed samples of gloves in saline for 1-2 hours at 37° to produce a SPT reagent, or use ammoniated or non-ammoniated latex to prepare SPT reagents. Care must be taken if gloves are used as the allergen source, because of the great variability in their allergen content; anaphylaxis has been reported following SPT. Intradermal testing is much more sensitive, but carries a correspondingly greater risk of anaphylaxis.

Several commercial assays are available to detect sIgE in vitro e.g. AlaSTAT (DPC) and ImmunoCAP (Pharmacia). The sensitivity and specificity of these systems is variable and may depend on natural variations in the allergen content of the source material, cross-reactivity with other sIgE ( e.g. food-specific IgE), the population being studied (e.g. spina bifida patients may have very high sIgE levels, whilst levels tend to be lower in health care workers) and threshold limits of the different assays. The presence of sIgE does not always mean that the individual will have clinical symptoms as sIgE may be present for months or years before clinical problems occur.

Other methods used to diagnose latex allergy include immunoblotting techniques, basophil histamine release (which, although highly sensitive, requires fresh cells and is difficult to standardise) and provocation testing. Provocation techniques include “glove use” methods, where the appearance of urticarial lesions constitutes a positive result, and inhalational challenges with nebulised aqueous extracts of latex or by exposure to cornstarch particles with adsorbed latex proteins, where reductions in peak flow and FEV1 are measured. Provocation testing is potentially dangerous and resuscitation facilities should be available.

Diagnosis of type IV hypersensitivity is by patch testing to rubber or rubber additives, which, by convention, is performed in Dermatology clinics.

Manufacturing issues

It is possible to reduce the protein content of latex products by manufacturing techniques such as double-centrifugation, improved washing, steam sterilization, chlorination and enzyme digestion. The Modified Lowry Assay is now recommended as the standard technique for detecting extractable proteins in natural rubber latex gloves. Unfortunately, rubber additives may interfere with the assay and the technique measures total protein rather than allergenic protein, but nevertheless the total protein concentration correlates quite well with SPT results14. The term “hypo-allergenic” is no longer recommended since allergen content per se is not measured.

Natural rubbers are available from other plants, for example the guayule bush (Parthenium argentatum), a desert shrub that grows in S.W. USA which has large quantities of natural rubber in its bark. The extraction techniques needed to harvest the rubber result in a low protein content, suggesting that guayule rubber would be less likely to cause type I hypersensitivity reactions. Guayule rubber products are not yet commercially available. Synthetic rubbers and plastics can be used in place of natural latex and many different brands of glove made from these materials are available. Unfortunately, these materials may be more expensive than natural latex and the gloves do not always provide such good protection, strength and elasticity.

Prevention

Primary prevention aims to prevent latex sensitisation, by avoiding latex exposure15. This may be difficult as latex is very widely used (Table 1) and latex-containing products are not always labelled. In addition, latex proteins may be transferred via gloves or hands and may be found in the atmosphere adsorbed to cornstarch particles.

Adhesive tape Ambu bags
Aprons Balloons
Bandages (elastic and compression) Blood pressure cuffs
Catheters Condoms
Drains (surgical) Dummies
Electrode pads Endotracheal tubes
Eye shields Gloves
Haemodialysis equipment Handgrips
Head straps Hot water bottles
Intravenous equipment (injection ports) Masks
Mattresses Plasters
Pressure stockings Protective sheets
Raincoats Rubber toys
Shoes Shower and swimming hats
Stethoscope tubing Stoppers
Stretch textiles Syringe plungers
Tourniquets Tyres
Underwear Ventilator tubes
Table 1. Medical and Non-Medical Products that may contain Latex

 

High risk groups should be identified and offered testing for latex allergy and advice on latex avoidance, the possibility of food cross-reactions and patient support groups. All procedures on patients with a positive history of latex allergy should be conducted in a latex-free environment and, if possible, patients with spina bifida should avoid exposure to latex from birth. Individuals at high risk of sensitisation should use powder-free, low protein gloves, or preferably gloves made from alternative materials.

Secondary prevention aims to prevent exposure in sensitised individuals. As most reactions to medical devices in sensitised patients are due to gloves or bladder catheters, non-latex gloves and catheters should always be used. Operations should be conducted in a latex-free environment and, as a precaution, pre-medication with steroids and antihistamines is sometimes advised to try and reduce the severity of an anaphylactic reaction should there be inadvertent exposure to latex. Most hospitals now have specific policy documents on latex allergy. Those with a history of anaphylaxis should wear an allergy bracelet and carry latex-free gloves.

Although there have been preliminary reports on latex desensitisation, immunotherapy is not yet routinely available.

 
back to top
 

1. Monoret-Vautrin DA, Beaudouin E, Widmer S, et al. Prospective study of risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1993; 92: 668-677.

2. Turjanmaa K, Alenius H, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, et al. Natural rubber latex allergy. Allergy 1996; 51: 593-602.

3. Posch A, Chen Z, Raulf-Heimsoth M, et al. Latex allergens. Clin Exp Allergy 1998; 28: 134-140.

4. Yassin MS, Sanyurah S, Lierl MB, et al. Evaluation of latex allergy in patients with meningomyelocele. Ann Allergy 1992; 69: 207-211.

5. Turjanmaa K. Incidence of immediate allergy to latex gloves in hospital personnel. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17: 270-275.

6. Palosuo T, Alenius H, Kalkkinen N et al. IgE antibodies to 3 purified latex proteins measured by ELISA. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 97: 324.

7. Slater JE, Vedvick T, Arthur-Smith A et al. Identification, cloning and sequence of a major allergen (Hev b 5 ) from natural rubber latex (Hevea brasiliensis). J Biol Chem 1996; 271:25394-25399.

8. Alenius H, Palosuo T, Kelly K et al. IgE reactivity to 14kDa and 27kDa natural rubber proteins in latex-allergic children with spina bifida and other congenital anomalies. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1993; 102: 61-66.

9. Swanson M, Bubak M, Hunt L, et al. Quantification of occupational latex aeroallergens in a medical center. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994; 94: 445-451.

10. Pumphrey RS, Duddridge M, Norton J. Fatal latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 107: 558.

11. Lavaud F, Saboutaud D, Deschamps F, et al. Crossreactions involving natural rubber latex. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 1998; 116:83-92.

12. Pridgeon C, Wild G, Ashworth F, et al. Assessment of latex allergy in a healthcare population: are the available tests valid? Clin Exp Allergy 2000; 30: 1444-1449.

13. Hamilton RG, Adkinson NF. Diagnosis of natural rubber allergy: Multicenter latex skin testing efficacy study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998; 102: 482-490.

14. MAT1-CT 940060 Final Report. European Commission DG XII. Science, research and development. Directorate C: Industrial and material technologies programme measurement and testing. Determination of allergological relevant compounds in disposable gloves. Correlation of chemical, allergological and immunological data.

15. Wrangsjö K, Lunberg . Prevention of latex allergy. Allergy 1996; 51: 65-67.